Crane v. Commissioner
331 U.S. 1 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For federal income tax purposes, the basis of depreciable property includes the amount of an unassumed mortgage on the property, and the amount realized upon its sale includes the outstanding mortgage principal, regardless of whether the owner is personally liable for the debt.
Facts:
- In 1932, petitioner inherited an apartment building from her husband that was subject to a mortgage.
- At the time of inheritance, the property's appraised value was exactly equal to the amount of the mortgage encumbrance, $262,042.50.
- Petitioner never personally assumed the mortgage debt.
- For nearly seven years, petitioner operated the building, reported the gross rents as income, and claimed tax deductions for expenses, interest, and depreciation on the full value of the building.
- In 1938, with the mortgagee threatening foreclosure, petitioner sold the property to a third party.
- The buyer paid petitioner a net cash amount of $2,500 and took the property subject to the existing mortgage.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner reported a small taxable gain on her 1938 income tax return based on her 'equity' theory of property valuation.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a substantial tax deficiency, calculating the gain based on a theory that 'property' meant the full value of the physical assets.
- Petitioner challenged the deficiency in the U.S. Tax Court.
- The Tax Court held for the petitioner, finding that her basis in the property was zero and her gain was only the net cash received.
- The Commissioner, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's decision, siding with the Commissioner.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For purposes of calculating taxable gain, does the term 'property' in the Internal Revenue Code refer to the physical asset itself, undiminished by mortgage debt, thereby requiring the inclusion of an unassumed mortgage in both the owner's basis and the amount realized upon sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
Yes, the term 'property' refers to the physical asset itself, not the owner's equity. This requires including the unassumed mortgage in both the property's basis and the amount realized upon sale. The Court's reasoning is threefold. First, the ordinary, everyday meaning of 'property' is the physical thing itself or the rights associated with it, not 'equity,' a term Congress uses distinctly when intended. Second, this interpretation aligns with long-standing administrative practice and Treasury regulations for both estate and income tax, which consistently value property without deducting mortgage liens. Third, this construction is necessary for the proper functioning of depreciation deductions; if basis were limited to equity (zero, in this case), no depreciation would be allowable, which contradicts the reality of the asset's physical exhaustion. To allow depreciation on a basis that includes the mortgage without also including the mortgage relief in the amount realized upon sale would grant the taxpayer an unfair double deduction.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
No, the term 'property' as used in the Revenue Laws should be construed as the owner's equity. The taxpayer acquired an equity with zero value, as the mortgage debt equaled the property's value. Because she was never personally liable for the debt, she was not released from any personal obligation when she sold the property. The mortgage was simply a subtraction from the value of what she received and subsequently sold. Therefore, the only thing she truly acquired and sold was her equity interest, and her gain should be calculated based on the net cash she received.
Analysis:
This landmark decision, establishing the 'Crane Rule,' is a cornerstone of American tax law, particularly for real estate and other leveraged assets. It solidifies the principle that a property's tax basis includes mortgage debt, which allows for greater depreciation deductions beneficial to taxpayers. However, it establishes the critical corresponding principle that relief from that same mortgage debt upon disposition constitutes part of the 'amount realized,' thereby ensuring that the earlier tax benefits are properly accounted for as taxable gain. This ruling prevents a 'double dipping' scenario and profoundly influences the financial structure and tax consequences of nearly all leveraged property transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Crane v. Commissioner